T Nation

Woman Who Sued Doctor Who Failed to Kill Baby in Botched Abortion Settle Lawsuit


#1

Imagine how the child matures and finds out her mother tried to have her slaughtered in the name of convenience.

"23-year-old Ariel Knights appears to have settled a bizarre lawsuit that saw her sue an abortion practitioner. She experienced a botched abortion, where her baby lived, and sued the abortion practitioner who performed the procedure for failing to take the live of her baby, who was six-months-old at the time.

Knights, when she filed the suit in March 2013, said she was thrilled to have her child, whom she calls a "miracle," but she sued the abortion practitioner and the abortion clinic for shoddy medical practice. Knights went to have an abortion because she has a rare medical condition where she was born with two uteruses and she worried about the medical complications associated with a pregnancy.

Now the lawsuit has either been settled or dismissed, though her attorney canâ??t say.

"A northeast Ohio woman has dismissed a lawsuit against an Akron clinic after she underwent an abortion but still gave birth to a healthy child," AP reports. "The attorney for 23-year-old Ariel Knights of Cuyahoga Falls says a confidentiality agreement prohibits him from saying whether there was a settlement in the suit filed against Akron Women's Medical Group."

Knights said she sought the abortion because she has a medical condition called uterus didelhpys. In laymen's terms, it means that she has two uteruses â?? one on the left and one on the right.

Knights discovered that she had the condition during her first pregnancy, but because her son, who is now a preschooler, was implanted in her left uterus, she did not feel as concerned. In the second pregnancy for which she sought the abortion, however, doctors advised Knights that her baby girl was growing in her right uterus, stating that it put her and the baby "at risk."

In March 2012, Knights went to Akron Women's Medical Group to seek an abortion.

"It was a decision made because my life was in jeopardy," she told reporters. "End of story. Point blank, thatâ??s it."

Knights admits that the environment inside of the facility was morbid.

"Every seat was full. People were standing," she said. "It was pretty much like a slaughterhouse. It was like, 'OK, next, next.'"

When it became Knights' turn, she hopped onto the operating table, and as the Akron Beacon Journal reports, "position[ed] her lower body above a trash bag." Days after the abortion, Knights still felt ill and in pain, so she went to the ER with her fiance, where an ultrasound was performed.

"[The doctor] was like, 'Oh my goodness, honey, you're still pregnant,'" she recalled. â??My fiance and I, we both were kind of in shock.â??

After calling Akron Women's Medical Group about the issue, Knights decided to seek out another abortionist. However, she was told that the facility would not take over after "somebody elseâ??s mistake." So Knights decided to keep the baby."


#2

Medical complications =/= convenience.

Baby lived, despite astronomical odds. Kind of a cool story actually.


#3

Read your fucking article-

[quote]
Knights said she sought the abortion because she has a medical condition called uterus didelhpys. In laymen’s terms, it means that she has two uteruses â?? one on the left and one on the right.

Knights discovered that she had the condition during her first pregnancy, but because her son, who is now a preschooler, was implanted in her left uterus, she did not feel as concerned. In the second pregnancy for which she sought the abortion, however, doctors advised Knights that her baby girl was growing in her right uterus, stating that it put her and the baby “at risk.”

In March 2012, Knights went to Akron Women’s Medical Group to seek an abortion.

“It was a decision made because my life was in jeopardy,” she told reporters. “End of story. Point blank, thatâ??s it.” [/quote]


#4

Ok, the on thing about this is that if her life really was in at risk from the pregnancy then by all means, the abortion is totally understandable. I do question that but am not a doctor and don’t know the specifics of her case, just the little bit of research on having a didelphuis reproductive system does put you at risk for some complications with your pregnancy but I cant find anything mentioned about it being life threatening. In the instances of life threatening abortions, OB-GYN’s should be the ones performing the abortions and not some clinic or to use her words fetal “slaughterhouse”.

I feel pretty confident that they would have had to blatantly lie to the woman about the success of the abortion as at 6 months a unborn baby is big enough and recognizable enough to know you had pieces of a child in that bag. Considering the health and well being of these child, obviously they didn’t have that.


#5

jbpick86 â??

I just have a few questions for you, I hope you will not mind.

Are there any examples of doctors that are completely wrong?

Can you predict the future and you KNOW the baby and mother would die? No you cannot predict the future. Even if both mother and child were to die from natural causes how is it justifiable to kill an innocent child to save the mother from a possible cause of death?

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, the on thing about this is that if her life really was in at risk from the pregnancy then by all means, the abortion is totally understandable. I do question that but am not a doctor and don’t know the specifics of her case, just the little bit of research on having a didelphuis reproductive system does put you at risk for some complications with your pregnancy but I cant find anything mentioned about it being life threatening. In the instances of life threatening abortions, OB-GYN’s should be the ones performing the abortions and not some clinic or to use her words fetal “slaughterhouse”.

I feel pretty confident that they would have had to blatantly lie to the woman about the success of the abortion as at 6 months a unborn baby is big enough and recognizable enough to know you had pieces of a child in that bag. Considering the health and well being of these child, obviously they didn’t have that. [/quote]


#6

magick -

Jaa jaa jaa jaa I DID read the article. Did you read and comprehend the entire article? I copied the first two paragraphs.

""23-year-old Ariel Knights appears to have settled a bizarre lawsuit that saw her sue an abortion practitioner. She experienced a botched abortion, where her baby lived, and sued the abortion practitioner who performed the procedure for failing to take the live of her baby, who was six-months-old at the time.

Knights, when she filed the suit in March 2013, said she was thrilled to have her child, whom she calls a “miracle,” but she sued the abortion practitioner and the abortion clinic for shoddy medical practice. Knights went to have an abortion because she has a rare medical condition where she was born with two uteruses and she worried about the medical complications associated with a pregnancy."

[quote]magick wrote:
Read your fucking article-

[quote]
Knights said she sought the abortion because she has a medical condition called uterus didelhpys. In laymen’s terms, it means that she has two uteruses â?? one on the left and one on the right.

Knights discovered that she had the condition during her first pregnancy, but because her son, who is now a preschooler, was implanted in her left uterus, she did not feel as concerned. In the second pregnancy for which she sought the abortion, however, doctors advised Knights that her baby girl was growing in her right uterus, stating that it put her and the baby “at risk.”

In March 2012, Knights went to Akron Women’s Medical Group to seek an abortion.

“It was a decision made because my life was in jeopardy,” she told reporters. “End of story. Point blank, thatâ??s it.” [/quote][/quote]


#7

[quote]batman730 wrote:

Baby lived, despite astronomical odds. [/quote]

Basically the overall main point I took away too.

Hope she goes on to do wonderful things in this world.


#8

Maybe a refund is due but it’s probably bad Karma to sue someone for failing to kill your kid. That kid will find out and never forget it.

Liberals got to be liberals.


#9

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
jbpick86 â??

I just have a few questions for you, I hope you will not mind.

Are there any examples of doctors that are completely wrong?

Can you predict the future and you KNOW the baby and mother would die? No you cannot predict the future. Even if both mother and child were to die from natural causes how is it justifiable to kill an innocent child to save the mother from a possible cause of death?

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Ok, the on thing about this is that if her life really was in at risk from the pregnancy then by all means, the abortion is totally understandable. I do question that but am not a doctor and don’t know the specifics of her case, just the little bit of research on having a didelphuis reproductive system does put you at risk for some complications with your pregnancy but I cant find anything mentioned about it being life threatening. In the instances of life threatening abortions, OB-GYN’s should be the ones performing the abortions and not some clinic or to use her words fetal “slaughterhouse”.

I feel pretty confident that they would have had to blatantly lie to the woman about the success of the abortion as at 6 months a unborn baby is big enough and recognizable enough to know you had pieces of a child in that bag. Considering the health and well being of these child, obviously they didn’t have that. [/quote]
[/quote]

Yes doctors can be wrong. However, every person has the right to the preservation of their life and if their is a reasonable belief that the child would cause death to the mother. It is basically a matter of self-defense at that point.

Same situation as if you were drowning and I swam out to save you. In your panic to preserve your life you are about to cause me to drown and in order to save myself I have to distance myself from you and let you drown. Doesn’t make it an easy decision but it should be within my right to preserve my life at the expense of yours. I couldn’t see the future and I might have could of saved us both but I reasonably deduced that the risk to my life was to extreme.

Lastly, the situations where abortions are necessary to save the mothers life are extremely rare as C-sections can often get around most of the life threatening complications.


#10

[quote]Freddy77 wrote:
Maybe a refund is due but it’s probably bad Karma to sue someone for failing to kill your kid. That kid will find out and never forget it.

Liberals got to be liberals.[/quote]

Lol, in this fucked up world that kid will probably turn out to be a feminist that fight’s solely for a woman’s right to chose.


#11

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I feel pretty confident that they would have had to blatantly lie to the woman about the success of the abortion as at 6 months a unborn baby is big enough and recognizable enough to know you had pieces of a child in that bag. Considering the health and well being of these child, obviously they didn’t have that. [/quote]

Also, there are multiple kinds of abortion. So, it might not have been the kind(sorry, I don’t remember the specific names) where the baby is de-limbed and beheaded in utero then brought out. It may have been a chemical abortion, or another kind as well.


#12

[quote]Young33 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I feel pretty confident that they would have had to blatantly lie to the woman about the success of the abortion as at 6 months a unborn baby is big enough and recognizable enough to know you had pieces of a child in that bag. Considering the health and well being of these child, obviously they didn’t have that. [/quote]

Also, there are multiple kinds of abortion. So, it might not have been the kind(sorry, I don’t remember the specific names) where the baby is de-limbed and beheaded in utero then brought out. It may have been a chemical abortion, or another kind as well.[/quote]

Pretty sure that past the first 3 months, evacuation abortions are the only ones able to be performed but I could be wrong. I mean you have a almost grown baby in there that has to come out at some point.


#13

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]Young33 wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

I feel pretty confident that they would have had to blatantly lie to the woman about the success of the abortion as at 6 months a unborn baby is big enough and recognizable enough to know you had pieces of a child in that bag. Considering the health and well being of these child, obviously they didn’t have that. [/quote]

Also, there are multiple kinds of abortion. So, it might not have been the kind(sorry, I don’t remember the specific names) where the baby is de-limbed and beheaded in utero then brought out. It may have been a chemical abortion, or another kind as well.[/quote]

Pretty sure that past the first 3 months, evacuation abortions are the only ones able to be performed but I could be wrong. I mean you have a almost grown baby in there that has to come out at some point.
[/quote]

Yeah, I was thinking about this more and that is a baby that is viable outside the womb at that point. But, at that she still could have taken a shot that would suffocate the baby I believe. But at any rate, I would think its pretty difficult to mess up that operation if you do it everyday. Fun fact, I was born not too long after this women’s gestational period, where she attempted an abortion.


#14

I read the title as “Woman who sued Doctor Who…”

As in the TV character.

Should have said “Woman who sued Doctor, whom failed…”

Lol I got a chuckle